The Bundy clan and their pocket Constitutions were not the only reason that I decided to do this review, but there was an influence. So many people complain about infringement on their Constitutional rights, and yet what they are saying does not sound quite right. After all, I hadn't really read the whole thing since high school, so maybe it was time to do it again.
Nothing in all of the review seemed to offer even a tiny toehold to the occupiers. I thought I'd read at one point that it had to do with an overly expansive reading of how the rules set up for Washington DC affect the federal government's ability to own land, but that doesn't really fly. Doing some internet searches, some have suggested an opposite interpretation of Article IV (section 3, clause 2):
http://lawatthemargins.com/2331-2/
That at least relates to land ownership, but again, you have to think it means the opposite of what it says.
I also read some reasoning that once Oregon became a state that it would invalidate federal claims to land, but even if you went there, then any actions should be on the state of Oregon's behalf, which they clearly were not.
So it was puzzling, but I think the answer to this conundrum is found not in the United States Constitution, but in other contrasts between things that the occupiers said and did.
Consider that the Bundy's bragged about how their actions in Nevada were peaceful and effective, without acknowledging that among the people they drew to the area to stand up to authority were people that killed police shortly after.
Consider that they said that if the Hammond's didn't want them there, or that if the locals did not want them there, they would go. After the Hammond's and many local people made it clear they did not want the occupiers there, they stayed.
Consider that Ammon Bundy is calling himself a political prisoner. He is not in jail for heading an opposition party, or voting wrong, or running an underground newspaper or radio broadcast. He is in jail for illegal actions.
We could probably go on quite a bit, but I don't think there's a point. They can continue to hold their unique interpretations of the law, but they will be judged by a more conventional and fact-based interpretation of the law, as it should be.
Their real motivation seems to be that they should be able to do and have what they want. So if they believe that it's okay to not pay grazing fees, but continue to graze, and not turn over land that they don't own and aren't paying for, well that's what they want!
If they protest to defend ranchers who have set illegal fires, endangering some lives and threatening others, when even those particular criminals don't want the protest, so what? This is what they want!
It is interesting to me that their political protests seemed to be increasing at about the same time that their outside success in the world was decreasing. I guess failed business owners have more time on their hands anyway, but it seems like there might be a lesson on toxic masculinity there. However, that's something I tend to address more on a different blog.
So, for this particular post, it seems more like this is a case of those people who mistake their First Amendment right of freedom of religion for the right to impose that religion on others, and get offended when others live differently. And the only thing I can really say to that is that is not how the Constitution works. Fortunately! It would be awful if it worked that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment